Southwark request for comments re Covid-19 / healthier streets

[slarti b]

dank4000 Wrote:

> Why does everyone seem to want the status quo of traffic and pollution everywhere? I don?t get it.

They don't. However, many local residents think that the COuncil's plans are poorly thought out and, in the case of the Covid measures, the Councillors are using the current crisis to push through contentious changes without proper consultation or scrutiny.

The problem is that anyone who questions or queries these plans is accused of favouring pollution. But remember that it was local residents who came up with a similar scheme to the OHS proposals for Area B as an alternative to the Council's flawed redesign of the DV junction 5 years ago. The council refused to consider it and ploughed on with a flawed scheme that they are now trying to replace with disproportionate measures.

[mockingbird]

deleted

[mockingbird]

In current times the Information Commissioner's Office has given some leeway on time to respond from Public Authorities. This has led some Councils to fail to respond - but their obligation to do so does not go away. It is deferred.

See here for the Group monitoring this:

https://www.cfoi.org.uk/campaigns/foi-during-covid-19/

In relation to the Emergency Orders being used by Southwark, if you wish to put in an FOI request for the orders or for information relating to the data supporting Our Healthy Streets Dulwich phases 2 and 3 - then do so. when you get a reply from Southwark advising they cannot respond, send it to the ICO, noting your concerns that Southwark is not transparent in its data for OHSD but is using that data to put forward the proposals for the C-19 emergency orders for Dulwich Village. And when you put in your FOI, do remember that our Councillors emails are subject to FOI. We may see yet more of their bias to certain outcomes and groups.

[tiddles]

I just wish the council would stop their endless twiddling and faffing. I suspect most of those planning these cock ups don?t live here but have a ?vision? - their costly consultations are clearly skewed and twisted to meet their needs. ?37% were in favour however we feel this is enough to justify implementing anyway and reviewing after 10 years? kind of approach. They cocked up the dulwich village junction (at what cost I would love to know). The cpz is another example of twisting figures. Sick to death of faceless bureaucrats pushing through their nonsense.

[first mate]

This is interesting when did this advice change and exactly what to?

?London?s walking and cycling commissioner, Will Norman, says there are no citywide plans to implement emergency cycle lanes during the crisis.

Norman said: ?The Mayor and the Government?s clear message is that Londoners should stay at home to save lives. Our continued investment in walking and cycling over the past four years is making it easier and safer for critical workers to get to where they need to be and we?ve ensured that NHS staff, care workers and the police can use our Santander Cycles hire bikes free of charge.?

?Any temporary cycle lanes on TfL?s road network would not be effective at keeping people safe without major changes to junctions. These changes would need to be installed by a significant number of on-site workers and the Mayor has made it clear that construction workers ? including those who were constructing new cycleways - should not be travelling at this time.?

He adds road traffic has halved, making it easier to take advantage of quieter streets to cycle.

Also https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/06/14/people-will-die-says-londons-cycling-commissioner-after-notting-hill-cycleway-scheme-rejected/

[slarti b]

Bicknell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I saw an email from one of the councillors that said 55% want the junction closed.

> If thats true half the people want it closed, and the other half doesn't.

Interesting that the councillors are quoting figures that have not yet been published which favour their scheme. Did they say what proportion of local residents, ie those withing the consultation area, wanted the junction closed? The council will have these figures.

Also, bear in mind that the local councillors have promoted highly misleading, if not untrue, figures, in support of their scheme in the past. Lets wait for the formal results analysed by where the respondents live. This will weed out the "rent a mob" responses by third party pressure groups.

[Jakido]

Lambeth are installing this this weekend https://brixtonblog.com/2020/04/railton-road-low-traffic-plan-for-health-emergency/ would be great if Southwark could show similar ambition

[first mate]

I rather sense that for many social distancing has gone out of the window. I would be very hacked off if huge effort goes into closing off streets on the basis of social distancing only to find most or even many do not bother. Why should everything be geared to facilitate the fittest and healthiest in society (those who can cycle long distances and up and down hills)?

[wtj]

dank4000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just reading the rest of this thread...

>

> Why does everyone seem to want the status quo of

> traffic and pollution everywhere? I don?t get it.

I doubt anybody wants the current status quo. I?m sure most people are desperate to see pollution levels reduce. However, closing local streets is not the solution. Even if this does have the desired effect of reducing overall levels of traffic it will without a doubt lead to increased traffic on the roads described rather outrageously in the councils original consultation documents as the main arterial roads. These roads - LL, EDG etc are residential streets just like other streets in the area. In fact some areas of these streets are more densely populated, with houses closer to the road, than some of the streets that have been recommended for road closures (eg townley road). As some people have already said on here, it is absolutely not acceptable to allow measures that make life better for some but are to the detriment of others.

Also, many of the schools in the local area were not shown in the original OHSD map e.g village infants, the junior school, east Dulwich Grove charter, JAGS prep, JAGS pre-prep, the primary school on LL (and that?s probably not all of them). These schools are all situated on - and in many cases are very close to - roads that will suffer from increased traffic due to displacement. It is not ok that children will sit in classrooms all day next to increased levels of traffic and therefore probably pollution, nor is it ok that children at these schools will have to walk along streets with increased traffic to get there.

I would like to see all talk of road closures dropped. We have to look at other measures to reduce pollution that affect everyone equally like improving public transport (difficult right now of course), finding a way to make escooters safe, greater incentives to use electric vehicles etc etc.

[Serena2012]

wtj - very well said. I couldn?t agree more. Any road closures which divert traffic onto the A roads will inevitably cause many of the schools in the area to become MORE polluted, and result in a far greater number of people (including schoolchildren and preschoolers) being exposed to higher levels of air pollution than hitherto. I certainly don?t want to retain the status quo, but the proposals are fundamentally flawed, and simply shift the burden of air pollution from one part of the neighbourhood to another (which also happens to be the part of the neighbourhood where thousands of our children study!)

[mockingbird]

Many of us have already emailed Councillor Livingstone and Highways to object to the closure of Dulwich Village junction which has been heavily objected to throughout the OHSD consultations.

If you haven't yet done so, the deadline is TOMORROW, MONDAY 15 JUNE.

If you object to closure, consider that timed restrictions to motor vehicles at peak hours, as opposed to closure to them, is an alternative intervention that would deliver the objectives of the Post-Lockdown Highway Schemes while being easy and cheap to trial, and is likely to win community support. It will also not disadvantage sections of our society such as the elderly, less mobile, those needing support services and those still needing to shield.

[slarti b]

Just checking on the documents supporting the "temporary" closure of Dulwich Village and I can see that the council is relying on figures that are not just highly misleading (like the 47% increase in traffic) but completely incorrect.

The document claim as a headline that that there are "3,500-4,000 pupils at peak hours". This headline claim is contradicted by one of the bullet points below that mention 2,500 pedestrians (not pupils) crossing Calton and Court Lane. According ot the council's own survey, during the 2 peak hour periods there are actually a total of less that 1,200 pedestrian movement, pupils and non-pupils, in and out of Calton Ave and Court Lane.

This is disgraceful and, together with the claim of the "47% increase", casts doubt of the integrity and competence of teh council officers who produce these documents.

[Rockets]

They really should not still be using the 47% figure for their propaganda - it is a lie - a deliberate fudging of figures to manage the narrative to their advantage when, in fact, there has been a steady decline in traffic through that junction over the years.

Interesting as well that, when challenged, Cllr McAsh, perhaps not surprisingly, washed his hands of it and told us to complain/take it up with the local councillors in that ward when the figures were exposed as fake.

Given the impact of that closure will be felt across his ward with more traffic on A-roads one might have expected him to try and get to the bottom of it.

[gabys1st]

Cut back hedges to maake pavements wider

[Bicknell]

Closing roads etc. Just saw this www.onedulwich.uk

.

[first mate]

Thanks Bicknell, this is mega important. Finally, an organised, informed campaign for timed street closures.everyone should read this link https://www.onedulwich.uk/

[Rockets]

My goodness me, isn't onedulwich refreshing - what a well-thought out and pragmatic approach to the challenges Dulwich faces in terms of traffic.

This is just the type of thing the residents across Dulwich need to support to ensure they are listened to by the council. The council's divide and conquer, knee-jerk and frankly dictatorial approach to area wide traffic challenges cannot be allowed to continue as we will be the ones who suffer. I hope more people get behind this and force the council to listen to a broader swathe of local opinion and input rather than those that engage with in their personal echo-chambers.

It is more than damning on our local councillors that this even has to exist and suggests a complete dereliction of duty by them.

[Earl Aelfheah]

We had 3 months for Southwark to prepare the streets for the easing of lockdown. During this time, it would have been easy to extend pavements (as simply as cones and some signs), introduce temporary, segregated cycle lanes and put in some temporary road closures. The window of opportunity has been thoroughly missed. Traffic on Lordship Lane is, this week, back to pre-COVID levels. It is impossible to visit the shops on Lordship Lane and comply with social distancing rules. As a result businesses will suffer and potentially, peoples health will suffer. The slow action by Southwark, when compared Lambeth just next door, is shameful.

[mockingbird]

If you get rebuffed by Southwark for an FOI request and told to resubmit ? refuse! Quote the ICO guidance that gives them leeway on timeframes but not the right to refuse your FOI. Ask for a reference number for your submission:

https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/policies-and-procedures/2617613/ico-regulatory-approach-during-coronavirus.pdf

Extract from ICO guidance below and the reminder to Counciles that they need to have proper record keeping :

Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations:

This unique crisis has required quick decision making and innovative uses of data, including geolocation and geospatial information. There has been, and will continue to be, intense public interest in understanding how and why decisions were taken and how information was used.

V2.0 15 April 2020

5 We will take an empathetic and pragmatic approach to our role regulating access to information regulation, recognising the importance of transparency, especially where people have seen their civil liberties impacted.

We recognise that the reduction in organisations? resources could impact their ability to comply with aspects of freedom of information law, such as how quickly FOI requests are handled, but we expect appropriate measures to still be taken to record decision making, so that information is available at the conclusion of the emergency.

We do not expect this will impact on the ability to take and progress actions that are necessary.

1. We will continue to accept new information access complaints. We will take a pragmatic approach to resolving these complaints, keeping engagement with the public authority to a minimum and being guided by them as to whether they are able to respond to our requests or require more time to do so.

2. We will recognise that the reduction in organisations? resources could impact their ability to respond to access requests or address backlogs, where they need to prioritise other work due to the current crisis. Organisations should recognise the public interest in transparency and seek as far as possible to continue to comply with their obligations for particularly high-risk or high profile matters. 3. We understand that there may be extreme circumstances where public authorities have no option but to temporarily reduce or suspend elements of their information access function.

4. We encourage public authorities to proactively publish information they know will be of importance to their communities.

5. We will continue to emphasise and support the importance of proper record keeping during a period of time

[exdulwicher]

The slow action by Southwark, when compared Lambeth just next door, is shameful.

Lambeth have done some good work so far, there's a related thread from Lambeth Living Streets here explaining some of it:

And a further related metastudy: https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/

If you get rebuffed by Southwark for an FOI request and told to resubmit ? refuse! Quote the ICO guidance that gives them leeway on timeframes but not the right to refuse your FOI. Ask for a reference number for your submission:

Depending on what you're asking for, FOI's are allowed to be refused if they're going to cost too much (the threshold is usually ?600) or they can ask you to be more specific. Asking for every piece of info from every single meeting for the last 3 years is likely to be refused simply because it will take too long to gather or because the info is already in the public domain if you're willing to spend long enough on the planning pages of Southwark's website. Asking for a specific item from one meeting is pretty easy to gather so do just be targeted in what you're after. Hope that helps.

[Abe_froeman]

So for example copies of email correspondence between Richard Livingstone / the Goose Green councillors and residents of Melbourne Grove in the last twelve months on the topic of closing off Melbourne Grove is probably easy to gather and accetpable?